From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Crossland Savings v. Friedman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 12, 1995
216 A.D.2d 351 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

June 12, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Huttner, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the appellants' contention, the plaintiff was not required to personally serve them with notice of the adjourned date of the foreclosure sale since the appellants failed to serve an answer to the complaint or a notice of appearance, or make a motion which would have had the effect of extending their time to answer (see, CPLR 320). Moreover, the appellants' unsuccessful settlement negotiations did not constitute an appearance (see, R.L.C. Investors v. Zabski, 109 A.D.2d 1053; Simkins v. Gruenspan, 118 Misc.2d 107, 109).

As the appellants failed to raise the estoppel argument before the Supreme Court, that argument has not been preserved for appellate review (see, CPLR 5501). Mangano, P.J., O'Brien, Ritter, Pizzuto and Florio, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Crossland Savings v. Friedman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 12, 1995
216 A.D.2d 351 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

Crossland Savings v. Friedman

Case Details

Full title:CROSSLAND SAVINGS, FSB, Respondent, v. MORRIS FRIEDMAN, Also Known as…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jun 12, 1995

Citations

216 A.D.2d 351 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
628 N.Y.S.2d 528

Citing Cases

Tortorici v. City of N.Y.

Moreover, to the extent that the DPR's inspection notification dated October 31, 2007, satisfies the “written…

Ferreira v. County of Orange

The defendant's alleged failure to otherwise maintain and repair the guardrail did not constitute an…